483

'II 01 Al 7 A1 2 (1982)

Passive Constructions in English*

Ik-Hwan Lee (Yon sei University)

1. Transformations

In the recent development of the theory of transformational grammar

(cf. Wasow 1977; Chomsky 1981), two passive rules are postulated. The

one is the so-called "unpassive" (Chomsky 1981:119) (or the "adjectival

passive"). It is observed that passives of this class show the characteristics

of regular adjectives as demonstrated in (1) through (3).

(1) A broken box sat on the table.

(2) a. John looked happy.

b. John looked elated.

(3) a. The island was uninhabited by humans.

b. *Humans uninhabited the island.

The participle broken in (1) appears in the prenominal adjectival position.

In sentence (2. b) the participle elated appears in a typical adjective position

as the adjective happy in (2. a) shows. Examples in (3) show that the

morphologically complex (un-) participle appears only in a passive sentence.

Thus, passives of this class are assumed to be base-generated as adjectives.

The other passive rule is the traditional passive transformation. The

traditional argument for this rule is based on the selectional restriction and

the synonymy that holds between a passive sentence and its active coun-

terpart as shown in (4) (5) . (Examples from Wasow 1977: 341)

* In preparing the present version of this paper, I have benefited from dis-cussions with Han-Gon Kim, Kiyong Lee, and Dong-Whee Yang. However,I am solely responsible for any errors in what follows.

484 Ik-Hwan Lee

(4) a. The United Fund was given *( 10).1'

b. $ 10 was given (to the United Fund).

(5) a. Someone gave the United Fund *( $ 10).

b. Someone gave $ 10 (to the United Fund).

If we assume a transformational rule of passive, then we do not need to

worry about the selectional restrictions of the verb give in (4). They are

already accommodated in the derivation of the sentences in (5), which

will be transformationally converted into those in (4).

Accordingly, it is concluded that two passive rules are necessary: adjec-

tival passive and transformational (or syntactic) passive. This approach is

claimed to be useful in accounting for the possible ambiguities of the

sentences in (6) ti (8).

(6) The door was closed.

(7) John was frightened.

(8) John was tired.

For example, the ambiguity of the sentence in (6) is distinguished as in

(9).

(9) a. The door was not open. (closed: adjective)

b. Someone closed the door. (closed: verb)

For the reading represented in (9a), the sentence in (6) is base-generated.

That is, the word closed is derived as an adjective. For the reading in

(9b), sentence (6) is transformationally derived. To put the points

differently, the adjectival passives are lexically derived, while transforma-

tional passives are derived by the rule of the sentence level operation.

2. Passive as a Phrasal Operation

Noting many traditional problems with the transformational approach to

1) Here, the asterisk (*) means that the sentence is ungrammatical without theitem in the parentheses.

Passive Constructions in English 485

passives, 2) Bach (1980) suggests, that passives be treated as phrase level

operations. Keenan (1981) also proposes a similar treatment. Their approach

may be summed up as in (10).

(10) a. Passive is not a sentence level operation.

b. Passive is a phrase level operation.

Neither of them, however, discusses the problem of morphologically com-

plex "unpassives" (or adjectival passives).

Bach (1980) constructs arguments on the basis of the sentence in (11).

(11) John was attacked and bitten by a vicious dog.

Sentence (11) contains a conjoined passive verb phrase, attacked and bitten.

In order to derive this conjoined passive verb phrase, according to Bach,

the rule of passive should be operative on the level of the conjoined verb

phrase attack and bite. Bach claims that it is hard to regard the verbs attackand bite are independently passivized and conjoined later. We will return

to this example in Section 5 below.

Keenan (1981) provides a semantic argument to prove that passive is a

rule operating on the level of TVP (transitive verb phrase). Particularly,

Keenan claims that passive is neither a sentence level operation nor a lexical

rule. For example, consider the sentence in (12).

(12) John was kissed by Mary.

If we .regard passive asp a lexical rule that operates on the level of 'the

lexical TV kiss, then the structure is represented a8 in (13).

(13) ((Pass, kiss), (by Mary)) vp

Keenan rejects this representation, and claims that in sentence (12) passive

operates on the phrase kiss by Mary.. This view is •represented as in (14).

(14) (Pass, (kiss,' (by Mary)))

2) Among other things, the problems include the paraphrase relation', thequestion of synonymy, and the over-generation.

486 Ik-Hwan Lee

Keenan provides several arguments for the representation in (14), while

disproving the one in (13).

Now, I attempt to show that Keenan's argument (specifically, his semantic

argument) is not correct. First I summarize Keenan's argument and discuss

the weakness of his argument. Consider a world in which (15) and (16)

have the same truth value.

(15) was kissed

(16) was beaten

That is, assume a world in which (15) and (16) have the identical set of

individuals as their denotations. Let us now combine the phrase by Mary

with (15) and (16). The results will be (17) and (18), respectively.

(17) was kissed by Mary

(18) was beaten by Mary

Then, the interpretations of (17) and (18) will be roughly represented as

(19) and (20), respectively.

(19) interpretation of (17) =interpretation of (15) + interpretation of by

Mary

(20) interpretation of (18) =interpretation of (16) + interpretation of by

Mary

It was postulated that (15) and (16) have the same interpretation. From

this it should follow that (17) and (18) have the same interpretation. But

it is not necessarily the case. Keenan attributes this fallacy to the assump-

tion that passive is a lexical rule. If passive is assumed to operate on the

phrase level, i.e., on the phrase kiss by Mary and beat by Mary, then we

will get the correct interpretation.

In Keenan's argument, however, there seems to be a mistake. Even if

we consider a world postulated by Keenan and assume a lexical rule of

passive, it does not necessarily follow that (17) and (18) should have the

same interpretation. Considering the compositionality principle, it should be

natural that the combined phrases, (17) and (18), may have different

Passive Constructions in English ,487

interpretations. Thus, Keenan's argument is based on his incorrect interpre-

tation In order to see that Keenan's argument is ill-motivated, . let us

consider a world in which the two expressions in (21) have the same

individual set as their denotations.3)

(21) a. honest

b. kind

If we follow Keenan's logic, (22a) and (22b) should have the same inter-

pretation (or the same individual set).

(22) a. honest man

b. kind man

However, this is not true, and the conclusion that Keenan's argument

would draw is incorrect. That is, Keenan's claim that passive cannot be a

lexical rule is not correct.

As mentioned above, neither Bach nor Keenan discusses the so-called

adjectival passives. For these passive constructions they may have to

postulate a different rule which will derive an adjective (i.e., past participle)

form from a transitive verb. Thus, their approach should eventually pos-

tulate two passive rules: one rule will derive a passive verb phrase and

the other rule will derive a passive adjective. Accordingly, their approach

is similar to the approach suggested by Chomsky and Wasow (discussed in

Section 1) in that it also includes two different types of rules. The only

difference would be that Chomsky and Wasow make use of a sentence level

passive rule, while Bach and Keenan postulate a phrase level passive rule.

3. Montague Grammar and Passives

In the tradition of Montague grammar, K. Lee (1974) expands Thomason's

3) The adjectives in (21) are assumed to be of type t///e. (cf. Siegel 1979:225). The issue whether adjectives originate in the predicate position or inthe attributive position is not directly relevant here. What is assumed inthis paper is' that the adjectives in (21) and (22) have the same semanticconsequences.

488 Ik-Hwan Lee

suggestion so that a single type of passive rule may be postulated for

agentive and agentless passives. K. Lee formulates rules on the basis of the

sentences in (23).

(23) a. Someone loves Mary.

b. Mary is loved.

c. Mary is loved by John.

Among other things, his rule derives a category of PPart (i.e., past par-

ticiple) from a TV (i.e., transitive verb). The derived category is supposed

to combine with the passive copula be to result in an IV phrase. He derives

an agent phrase (e.g., by John) by combining by (of category Agent/T)

with a T-phrase. This way he can account for not only agent passives but

also agentless passives. He discusses many examples including the scope

ambiguities. He, however, does not consider the adjectival passives.

On the other hand, Dowty (1978) postulates two types of passive rules:

namely, a syntactic passive rule and a lexical passive rule. The syntactic

passive rule applies to a TV and produces not only truncated but also full

passive phrases of the category of IV. The lexical rule applies to a TV

and produces an adjective. With some modifications, his passive rules and

accompanying mechanisms can be represented as in (24) (28) .

(24) New Categories

Name Definition MemberACN CN/CN {old, large, ...PP ACN/TV {en}PP/T PP/T {by}

(25) Syntactic Passive rule (S55) : If crEPTv, PEPpp, then Fs55(a, P)and (i) if en, then FS55 (a, 13)—be /3', where p' comes from /3 by

replacing the first verb in /3 by its past participle form; and (ii) if

a* en, then F555 (a, /3) =be is, a, where j3' is as in (i).

Translation: 131("a')

Example: F555 (by Mary, steal) =be stolen by Mary

Fs55 (en, give to Mary) be given to Mary

Passive Constructions in English 489

(26) Lexical Passive rule (L55) : If aCPTV, then FL55 (a) EPAcN, where

FL55 (a) = the past participle form of a.

Translation: AxVy H [a' (^2PP {x}) (y)

Example: FL55 (steal) = stolen

(27) By phrase rule: If a E PPP/T, E PT, then FS56 (a , 9) e Ppp, where FS56

(a, jS) =a him. if p=hen ; aj3 otherwise.

Example: Fs56(by, John) =by John, Fs56(bY, het) =by him2(28) Translation of by and en:

a. by=A1ARAxl {AAY EvR (y, ^APP {x}) ] } , where R is Vo, C s, f (TV)b. en= ARAxVy EvR (y, ARP {x}

The above rules can appropriately account for the sentences in (29) and

(30) .

(29) A book was stolen.

(30) A book was stolen by John.

Sentence (29) is derived as in (31) and translated as in (32) .

(31)A book was stolen, t, 4

a book, T

be stolen, IV

be, IV/ACN stolen, ACN, L55

steal, TV

(32) APVx [book' (x) "P {x} ("AzyyH (steal' (y, ARP {z}

---=Vx [book' (x) Avy H steal' (y, ARP {x} )]

7=7--VX [book' (x) A vy H stealer (y, x)]

Sentence (30) is derived as in (33) and translated as in (34) .

(33)

A book was stolen by John, t, 4

a book, T be stolen by John, IV, S55

by John, PP, S56 s eal, TV

by, PP/ T

John, T

490 Ik-Hwan Lee

(34) AlARAx/ tAAY Cy, ^APP (AAPP ( j} ) (^steal')

--=Ax steal:. (j, x))

APvy [book' (y) n P brl] (^Ax stealer x))

..-=-VY [book' (y) A steal4 Y)]

In the translation in (32) Dowty introduces a symbol H, which is absent

in the translation in (34). This is used to mean the state of affairs suggested

by the adjectival participle. It is claimed that the sentence in (29), i.e.,

A book was stolen, is ambiguous between an 'already stolen' reading and a

reading of 'be stolen at a specific moment.' Dowty's symbol H, however,

does not sufficiently classify this ambiguity. Nonetheless, his rules can

handle the sentences in (35) and (36) .

(35) Mary was attacked and bitten by a vicious dog.

(36) John seems untaught.

4. An Alternative Treatment

In this section, taking K. Lee's (1974) suggestion and Dowty's rules into

consideration, I reformulate two lexical rules which will account for the

relevant data in a uniform way. Syntactically, I adopt Freidin's (1975)

conclusion, and postulate the passive predicate as an adjective phrase (AP).

Thus, the passive verb is regarded as an adjective. Specifically, the exam-

ples discussed above will be derived as in (37).

(37) a. stolen is analyzed as F 1LAP LAJ A, AP

b. stolen by John is analyzed as r r r 1 1LAP L AJ A [PP] PP] AP

Both AP and A will be categorized as members of the category ACN.

The derived phrases in (37) are to combine with the passive copula be.

To achieve this end syntactic categories are postulated as in (24) above,

but the item en is no longer regarded as a member of the category of PP.

Two passive rules are formulated as in (38) and (39). It should be noted

here that these two rules are actually of the same type.

Passive Constructions in English 491

(38) Passive rule (L55) : If aPTv, then FL55 (a) PACN, where FL55

= the past participle form of a.

Translation : Ax Vy [a' (^RP lx}) (y)]

(39) Passive rule (L57) If cfP .ry and pPpp, then FL57 (a, P)ePACN,where FL57 (a, where al is the past participle form of a.Translation: /3' (Aa')

The rule in (39) , i.e. , L57, necessitates the by-phrase rule given in (27)

above as L56. In addition, by and the passive copula be are translated as

in (40) .

(40) a. by= ANItlxj) VAy (y, ^RP {x} ) 1} , where R is Vo, <s, f (TV) >

b. be=2/1/2xM{^Az Ez= , where M is Vo, <s, f (ACN)

This formulation of passive rules has an important advantage over the

previous analyses. My analysis unifies the passive predicates (e.g., stolenand stolen by John) into an adjective phrase at the stage where they com-bine with the passive copula be. The syntactic evidence for this treatment

is discussed by Freidin (1975) . The translation of by in (40a) is adopted

from Dowty (1978) . The translation of be in (40b) is intended to represent

the semantically empty copula be. In this way the syntactic categories are

unified, and still the truncated and full passives can be equally treated.

Furthermore, the adjectival character of some passives is properly accom-

modated.

Now, the examples in (29) and (30) above are derived and translated

as in (41) r%) (44) . The step by step translations are omitted.

(29) A book was stolen.

(41) A book was stolen, t, 4

a book, T be stolen, 1V

be stolen, ACN, L55

steal

492 Ik-Hwan Lee

(42) Vx [book' (x) A Vy H steam.' (Y, x)] 4)

(30) A book was stolen by John

(43) A, book was stolen by John, t, 4

a book, T

be stolen by John, IV

be stolen by John, ACN, L57

by John, PP, L56

steal

(44) Vy [book' (y) A steal.' x)

The ambiguity of Bach's (1978:321) sentence in (45) can also be treated

with the new rules as in (46).

(45) John was attacked and bitten by a vicious dog.

(46)

a. John was attacked and bitten by a vicious dog, t, 4

John, T be attacked and bitten by a vicious dog, IV

be attacked and bitten by a vicious dog, ACN

attacked, ACN bitten by a vicious dog, ACN

by a vicious dog, PP

bite

b. John was attacked and bitten by a vicious dog, t, 4

John, T be attacked and bitten by a vicious dog, IV

be attacked and bitten by a vicious dog, ACN

by a vicious dog, PP attack and bite, TV

attack bite

The analysis tree in (46b) represents a reading in which the agentive

reading of the dog ranges over the phrase attack and bite, while the tree

4) Here, unlike Dowty, the symbol H is used as the usual tense marker.(cf. PTQ)

Passive Constructions in English 493

in (46a) represents the agentive reading of the dog covers only the verb

bite. Here, I assume that a conjunction rule of TV's and ACN's is appended

to the PTQ rules. Sentences such as the one in (47)

(47) John seems untaught.

can be accounted for by L55. The verb seem is translated in a similar way

as the passive copula be.

5. Idioms and Other Examples

Let us consider the sentences in (48).

(48) a. They took advantage of their inexperience.

b. Advantage was taken of his inexperience.

c. His inexperience was taken advantage of.

These sentences can be accounted for if we assume that the idiom take

advantage of in (48) has two structures. In (48c) the phrase take advantage

of can be treated as a transitive verb (cf. Wasow 1977: 345; Bach 1980:

323; Chomsky 1981:146, fn. 94). Sentence (48h), however, poses a

problem. A noun is moved out of the internal structure of the idiom. No

convincing explanation has yet been proposed. For the moment, I suggest

the following account. That is, let us take the phrase take of NP as a TV

phrase. This is the same as regarding phrases such as expect to go as TV

phrases. Then, the phrase take of NP is passivized and combined with the

copula be. Although there remains a problem of combining the noun

advantage (of type CN) with the IV phrase I simply assume that this

problem can be accommodated in some way. Look at another example of

idiom in (49).

(49) a. John kicked the bucket.

b. (*)The bucket was kicked by John.

With the idiom meaning of the phrase kick the bucket, the passive sentence

in (49b) is ungrammatical. If we treat the phrase kick the bucket as a TV

494 ik-Hwan Lee

phrase, then the situation can be explained. In, other words, in this case,

if kick and the bucket are divided, then the idiom meaning cannot be

obtained. How about the sentences in (50).

(50) a. That bed looks slept in.

b. This room is very lived in.

These sentences can be explained if we regard sleep in and live in as

belonging to the TV class. 5) Finally, consider the examples in (51) r•-, (54).

(51) a. Max resembles Harry.

b. *Harry is resembled (by Max).

(52) a. George turned the page.

b. The page was turned by George.

(53) a. George turned the corner.

b. *The corner was turned by George.

(54) a. The train approached me.

b. *I was approached by the train.

(55) a. The stranger approached me.

b. I was approached by the stranger.

The phenomena in (51),,, (53) can be accounted for by appropriate verb

classifications. In (54), the phrase by the train cannot act as an agent.

That is why the sentence in (54b) is ungrammatical.

As for the active-passive relationship, the problem can be solved if we

adopt the notion of conventional implicature (Karttunen & Peters 1979;

Ik-Hwan Lee 1980). That is, if we assume that the syntactic construction

of passive (cf. S57 in (39)) carries the implicature that it has its active

counterpart, then the passive-active relationship can be properly captured.

This implicature is incorporated into the translation of S57 in (39) above.

5) For instance, Chomsky (1981:123) treats speak to as a verb. That is whythe following sentence is ungrammatical: *John was spoken angrily to.

Passive Constructions in English 495

6. Summary and Conclusion

In this paper, an attempt was made to provide a uniform treatment of

various types of passive constructions. Particularly, in order to solve the

problems concerning the passive constructions, I adopted Freidin's syntactic

arguments of passives and accommodated his points with the semantic

translations within the framework of Montague grammar. I reviewed the

principles and mechanisms developed by Kiyong Lee and Dowty, and

revised their suggestions in such a way as to reflect the syntactic and

semantic uniformity of passive constructions.

To conclude, I hope to have shown the effectiveness of Montague's model

theory in providing a proper treatment of passive constructions.

References

Bach, Emmon. 1980. In defense of passive. Linguistics and Philosophy 3. 3. 297-

341.Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman Group.

Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Reflections on language. New York: Pantheonantheon Pub. Co.

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht-Holland:

Foris Publication Co.

Dowty, David. 1978. Governed transformations as lexical rules in a Montague

grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 393-426.

Freidin, Robert. 1975. The analysis of passives. Language 51. 384-405.

Karttunen, Lauri & Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. Syntax and

semantics 11: Presuppositions, ed. by Choon-Kyu Oh, 1-56. New York: Acade-

mic Press.

Keenan, Edward. 1981. Passive is phrasal (not sentential or lexical). Lexical

grammar, ed. by T. Hoekstra, H. van der Hust, and M. Moortgat, 181-213.

Dordrecht-Holland: Foris Publications,

Lee, Ik-Hwan. 1978. Syntax and semantics of Korean sentential complements of

nouns. Proceedings of the Ninth Meeting of the North-East Linguistic Society,

496 Ik-Hwanl Lee

ed. by Bartistella, Edwin et al., 45-65. New York: Queens College Press.

Lee, Ik-Hwan. 1980a. Korean particles, complements, and questions: a Montague

grammar approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, U of Texas, Austin, Texas. Published

in Seoul, Korea: Han Shin Moon Wha Co.

Lee, Ik-Hwan. 1980b. English reflexive pronouns in Montague grammar. English

Language and Literature 75.175-194.

Lee, Kiy,ong. 1974. Montague grammar. Ph.D. Dissertation, U of Texas, Austin,

Texas.

Siegel, Muffy E.A. 1979. Measure adjectives in Montague grammar. Linguistics,

philosophy, and Montague Grammar, ed. by S. Davis & M. Mithum. 223-262.

Austin, Texas: U of Texas Press.

Thomason, Richmond. 1976. Some extensions of Montague grammar. Montague

Grammar, ed. by B. Partee. 77-118. New York: Academic Press.

Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon, Formal syntax, ed. by

P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian, 327-360. New York: Academic

Press.